~SITE
PHILOSOPHY~ This site is provided by
enlighten technologies, inc.�, an Iowa based
corporation, and is intended as a resource
rich research site aimed at giving back to the
community and the state of Iowa in
appreciation for all those who have helped us
these past Fifth teen years to succeed in the
law service industry. We feel that
helping to promote the State of Iowa Caucus is
an important part of the political process and
is beneficial to both our community and
the State of Iowa.

What was the financial
outcome of the 2016 Iowa Caucus?The financial spending by the presidential
candidates in the state of Iowa
for the 2016 Iowa Caucus has gone beyond any early
predictions. The total from both political parties'
campaign spending was around $72,412,524.03, which
is $20,818,675.03 more
than the amount spent in the 2008 Iowa
Caucus (See 2008). This
amount of money will ensure that Iowa will
continue to fight to be first in the nation for future presidential caucuses and campaigns. The biggest
winners in receiving the most funds from the
candidates appears to be the media outlets in Iowa -
mostly TV stations. They received around $65,000,000.00 to be
divided up amongst a little over 20 TV stations (See below).

The top 3 candidates from both
parties appear to have spent $.02/.03 cents per
dollar from
the total dollars dispursed for their campaign
for travel, lodging, food, campaign staff
salaries, and
rental offices. This is only the amount spent in
the state of Iowa not counting what was spent in
other states. The candidates who were below the
top 3 appear to have only spent $.01 cent per dollar spent of their total dollars distributed in their
campaign within the state of Iowa for travel,
lodging, etc in the state of Iowa.
A few of the candidates may have spent more and
were not awarded one of the top 3 spots in the
final caucus poll but there is nothing to indicate that
any candidate spent more than .03 cents of their
total distribution in the state of Iowa. These figures
were based on what the candidates
reported to the FEC. We came up with two separate formulas:
1/37 percent of the total budget for the top 3
candidates and 1/60
percent of the total budget for those who did
not finish in the top 3.

Breakdown of Spending:

Democratic
Spending for the Iowa Caucus:

Candidate

Ads
(TV only) in Iowa

Iowa
Campaign

Net
Operation Expenditures 12-31-16

Hillary
Clinton

$9,400,000.00

$2,096,956.65*

$77,587,396.20

Bernie Sanders

$7,400,000.00

$1,263,615.10*

$46,753,759.21

Martin O'Malley

$219,000.00

$126,981.37

$4,622,391.07

Total

$
17,019,000.00

$ 3,487,553.12

$
128,963,546.48

Republican
Spending for the Iowa Caucus:

Candidate

Ads
( TV only) in Iowa

Iowa
Campaign

Net Operation Expenditures
12-31-16

Ted
Cruz

$6,000,000.00

$766,271.96*

$28,352,062.59

Donald
Trump

$3,300,000.00

$336,240.32*

$12,440,892.08

Marco
Rubio

$11,800,000.00

$801,769.22*

$29,665,461.29

Ben Carson

$3,500,000.00

$791,149.38^

$47,468,963.06

Rand Paul

$1,100,000.00

$170,822.78^

$10,249,366.63

Jeb Bush

$14,900,000.00

$405,537.35^

$24,332,241.84

Carly Fiorina

0.00*

$114,412.49^

$6,864,749.34

John Kasich

0.00*

$84,084.40^

$5,045,064.24

Mike Huckabee

$2,000,000.00*

$63,018.74^

$3,781,124.10

Chris Christie

0.00*

$100,552.84^

$6,033,170.65

Rick Santorum

$3,000.00*

$12,714.51^

$762,870.52

George Pataki

0.00*

$8,712.00

$524,850.00

Candidates
who dropped out during or shortly after the Iowa Caucuses.

Boby Jindal

$3,300,000.00*

$24,041.06

$1,442,463.52

Scott Walker

$1,000,000.00*

$30,395.49

$1,823,729.05

Rick Perry

$813,878.00*

$130,338.18

$7,820,290.68

Lindsey Graham

$119,286.00*

$84,909.88

$5,094,592.30

Total

$ 47,836,164.00

$ 3,924,970.60

$ 191,701,891.89

TABLE KEY:

*

Total amount is
unknown so 1/37 of total campaign expenditures used.

^

Total amount is
unknown so 1/60 of total campaign expenditures used.

If no astrisk, total amount is
accurate according to FEC.

TV

Total amount of advertisement
is based on
NBC News and source http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/total-amount-spent-campaign-ads-iowa-n504506
findings.

Iowa Campaign:After you take out the $65,000,000 spent on TV
ads, the rest of the money spent in Iowa equals approximately $7,412,524.03 for about
nine months of campaigning from around May 2015 until
Febuary 2016. The amount spent on hotels, travel, food, and campaign
staff was calculated based on thetotal amount spent by the
top placing candidates up to December 31, 2016 and then divided by 1/37 to produce the
estimation of .02/.03 cents per dollar spent in total.
The total amount spent by candidates who did not place in the top 3 appears to
be about 1/60 of their total campaign budget. Both of these percentages do
not include the money spent for TV ads in the state. This is based on several
candidates who have posted actual numbers of dollars spent in Iowa. Campaign spending
amounts that were available were verified on the FEC site. The numbers in this
field represent spending by the candidates on
transportation, staffing expenses, food, hotel, and other
items in Iowa as an estimation only. Data was based on
the sources found below.

How much money was raised up to January 2016 for the presidential election?The breakdown of contributions from both
parties for the 2016 U.S.
presidential race, focusing on the top ten candidates
according to the Federal Election Commission, are as follows:

1)

Hillary Clinton

$77,471,603.55

2)

Bernie Sanders

$41,463,783.81

3)

Ben Carson

$31,409,508.61

4)

Ted Cruz

$26,567,298.26

5)

Marco Rubio

$25,328,081.03

6)

Jeb Bush

$24,814,729.70

7)

Rand Paul

$ 9,442,030.77

8)

Carly Fiorina

$ 8,496,012.50

9)

Donald Trump

$ 5,828,922.10

10)

John
Kasich

$ 4,388,168.30

These amounts do not include funds raised for Political Action Committies
(PACs). Please
review the links below for further information.

Iowa plays a significant role in the
nomination of presidential candidates.

The Caucuses are primarily for the Democratic and
Republican parties. In the last 40 years, starting in
the 1970s when Iowa moved its' Caucus to be the first
Caucus in the Nation, Iowa has become a predictor in
identifying the top three candidates from both
parties. Only those candidates who finish in the top
half of their party typically move on to campaign
strong in other states. In fact, in the past, the Iowa
Caucuses have become more of a clearing field in
determining which candidates will stay in the race and
which candidates will throw in the towel. This would
appear to be a more accurate depiction of Iowa's role
in the presidential campaigns than in determining
which candidate will be nominated by their respective
party. Iowa does play a big part in allowing
candidates a chance to showcase their political
prowess to a fairly middle of the road state.(See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus.)

Iowa can be
a barometer of sorts measuring the nation's state-of-mind because,
for the last ten Iowa Caucuses, Iowa has identified the nation's two
primary picks for the top runner from both the Democratic and Republican
party five times and from just the Democratic party six times.The importance
of Iowa may be more significant to the individual candidates running
for president than to their party simply because it is
cheaper to campaign in Iowa than in many of the other states
entertaining the notion of scheduling their Primaries closer to the Iowa
Caucus. A win in an early state that is cheaper to campaign in gives an
advantage to those candidates who would normally not have the funds to
campaign in a larger state. Larger states will cost the candidates a
greater amount of upfront capital to campaign per registered voter. In
addition, Iowa's population is clustered into regions within the
state, which makes it easier to reach potential audiences. Campaigning
in a state like Iowa has advantages over larger states because their
media outlets will focus on candidates as though they were celebrities,
giving them free press and headline news, whereas other states would
continue to cater to local celebrities, athletes, and business leaders,
giving them the coverage and headline news, which would overshadow a
political campaign candidate.

Iowa and
other states of similar size are playing a larger role in close
elections because of the electoral college. In 2000, the difference
between the winner and loser was only five electoral votes, which means
states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Iowa can change an election
outcome drastically. (See
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/elecpop.htm.)

The Iowa
Caucus is more 'traditional' than other caucuses.

The Iowa Caucus process starts out months before the actual Caucus with
assembly hall type meetings where candidates make
scheduled visits to particular places in Iowa communities.
Typically, the meetings take place at local high schools, universities,
libraries, town halls, coffee shops, hotel conference centers, and other
public buildings. The smaller venues allow the candidates to
interact on a more intimate level while the larger venues allow a wider
audience to participate as the candidate is able to move freely amongst
the public, shaking hands, answering questions, discussing platform
issues, and, hopefully, inspiring fund raisers to assist with campaign
donations. Most of the candidates are able to garner quality time
with voters because of the small town atmosphere that permeates each
meeting. Iowans tend to have more traditional values and believe
that the process of selecting the most qualified candidate for president
of the United States is very serious business and every citizen's duty to
their country. Iowans are hospitable to candidates and enjoy
engaging others in discussions on political and social issues, and the
environment in Iowa has always been safe and inviting for presidential
candidates in the 43 years Iowans
have been hosting Caucuses.

How
do the candidates promote themselves in Iowa?
The candidates who visit Iowa are afforded many opportunities to reach out
and speak to
Iowa Caucus goers. One of the overlooked avenues to get the
attention of Iowa Caucus goers is by talking to the local news sources. This allows the candidate to
communicate their views to a significant amount of individuals in that local community without
going door-to-door
(See Iowa
News). One of the main ways that a candidate can get their message out
is via Iowa Public Television and by participating on Iowa
Press, which has worked for sitting presidents and candidates who have won
the Iowa Caucus in the past.

Have Iowan's shifted voting habits?

Looking at the most
recent voting trends, it seems as though Iowa voters are losing momentum in the voting booth and have reached the cap of
individuals who are willing to vote in the general elections. The total
popluation of the state of Iowa is 3,107,126, which is an increase of 60,257
people from 2010. The total number of voters in the 2010 midterms was
1,133,434 individuals compared to 1,142311 Iowans in 2014,
which is only 8,877 more individuals. The 1.4% increase is not
reflective of the overall population increase of 2.0%, which is what one
would expect to see in the voting booth over the same time period.
Although, the
more alarming statistic is that 447,640 Iowans who voted in the 2012
election did not vote in 2014 - a potentially
frightning trend, if it continues. Even as the Iowan popluation slowly grows, the
voting interest seems to be waning. For the past two
decades there had been an increase in voter participation. In 2004, 1,521,966 Iowans voted. That increased by
24,487 voters in 2008, and increased again
in the 2012 presidential election by 43,498 voters for a total of 1,589,951.
Unfortunately, this
increase each election cycle may be
losing its' steam; when looking at the congressional election of 2014,
which had a total of 1,142,311 Iowan voters, there was a decrease of
410,877 participants who had voted two years
earlier. The question is, will the 2016 presidentail election see a
decrease in voters, forcing Iowa to fall in line with other states,
which have seen a decrease in the
interest to vote? At this point
in time, it looks that way.
Iowa Legislature
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/SP/attachments/615751_741815.pdfNPR News
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/

Who were the winners of the Iowa Caucus?

On Febuary 1,
2016, the Iowa Caucus was successfully held at around 7:00pm Central
Standard Time without any reported difficulties. The
Iowa Caucus is the first step in the nomination
process of selecting the next President of the
United States. The winner of the Democratic
party was
Hillary Clinton, and the winner of the Republican
party was
Ted Cruz.

Much like the
adopted symbol of the Republican Party, the moderate
Republican is on the verge of extinction. The elephant,
once considered highly intelligent, self-aware, and
believed to be capable of great empathy, may no longer be
an appropriate symbol for today’s Republican Party.
Instead of those precepts, today’s Republican candidates
(especially for national office) verbally embrace and
espouse bigotry, self-centered interest, and hatred.
Moderate thinking individuals who considered themselves
Republicans in basic philosophy, while also believing
themselves to be intelligent, self-aware, and empathetic
to others, are being driven from the ranks of the
Republican Party. It would appear that a philosophy of
moderation is no longer welcome in the Republican Party.
In fact, a few years ago a Republican candidate for
president, still a candidate for president, boldly stated
that there was no room for “moderates” in the Republican
Party. Over the past couple of decades that has been true.

In the year 2013, the African elephant sadly
experienced the loss of 35,000 of its kind to poachers. It
cannot be said that the loss of moderates from the
Republican Party was due to poachers, unless one were to
accuse the lunatic fringe as Party poachers. Let’s not do
that. But it may be fairly said that such Party losses
have been due to the capture of the Republican Party by
those with limited philosophies. While the Republican
Party is being held hostage by those with intellectual
limitations, it has lost significant numbers in terms of
registered voters in Iowa (in 2014/15 the registrations of
Republicans in Iowa have dropped to 663,177 - see Iowa
Secretary of State Statistics). Since there are 2,400,000
adults of voting age in Iowa with 2,132,143 individuals
registered to vote, Republican registered voters represent
barely ¼ of the eligible voters in Iowa. Nationwide the
numbers are similarly disappointing. There are roughly
218,595,000 individuals eligible to vote in the United
States with 146,311,000 registered voters (See:
Statistical Brain Research Institute); and according to
Pew Research, only 23% of the registered voters in the
U.S. are Republican, while 32% are Democrats and 39% are
registered as Independents.

As noted above, the loss to
the ranks of registered Republicans has not been due to
poachers but to philosophical extremism. Based upon
current trends, some studies have projected that the
African elephant may be extinct by 2020. In the case of
the Republican Party, the point of extinction will likely
take longer than five years; however, if the belligerence
of the current base of the Republican Party continues,
especially by purposely excluding moderate thinking
individuals, the extinction is coming – it will just be a
bit longer than five years. There is a reason that the
number of independent voters in Iowa have grown to 807,088
(2014/15 statistics from the Office of the Iowa Secretary
of State).

While Iowa leads the nation in providing
the first stage of scrutiny for national candidates of a
political party through its precinct caucuses, both the
average voter and the average registered Republican are
left out of the selection process. For example, in 2012,
there were between 614,913 – 664,945 registered
Republicans in Iowa (depending upon the source
considered); however, only 121,503 of those voters turned
out for the precinct caucuses in order to provide a
measure of which Republican candidate for president was
favored. These 121,503 individuals represent just over 19%
of the 614,913 figure and barely 18% of the 664,945 figure
of registered Republicans in Iowa. Of the 2,400,000 adults
of voting age in Iowa, those 121,503 individuals, who
attended the Republican caucuses in 2012, represented just
5% of Iowa citizens of voting age. Therefore, a mere 5% of
the 2,400,000 adults of voting age in Iowa became the
spokespersons for the entire Republican Party relative to
the preferred choice of a Republican candidate for
President of the United States.

If one were to
contemplate the impact of the Iowa caucuses on the
national plain of politics that has 218,595,000
individuals eligible to vote, those 121,503 Iowa
Republicans, representing .0556 of 1% percent (121,503 ÷
218,595,000) of the eligible national voters, tell the
nation who the Republican choice for President of the
United State should be. With this factor (considerably
less than one tenth of 1%) in mind, it is quite easy to
understand how a fringe group, whether religious,
philosophical, or ego-centric, can control the Republican
side of the electoral process in Iowa and accordingly,
inform the nation who should be the Republican candidate
for President. Is this an acceptable practice or is it
simply an accepted practice? Should it continue to be
such? Stubborn Dissolution:

Like their Republican counterparts, the Democratic
caucus goers are reflective of their Party symbol. The
donkey (Democratic Party symbol), considered a
domesticated member of the equine family, also found its
origin in Africa and, while some of the species are
considered to be endangered, most often the species is
considered to have a notorious reputation for stubbornness
which has been attributed to a strong sense
of self-preservation. It is perhaps that quality, more
than any other, that could be credited to the fact that
the political party operatives of the Democratic Party
insist that in order to have a “voice” in the selection
process of a candidate for public office, a party member
must “pay their dues” and work within party ranks before
being considered worthy of serving as a candidate or
trusted party member. That might be considered a bit
stubborn.

Some cognitive studies have been done on
the donkey and those studies indicate that the donkey is
“intelligent, cautious, friendly, playful, and eager to
learn.” However, like the Republicans of today, it is
becoming more and more difficult to match such attributes
to the Democratic caucus going citizen – particularly the
“eagerness to learn” part. Today’s Democrats seem to have
some difficulty in learning from their mistakes. Perhaps
that is why the stubbornness remains as a peculiarity. The
propensity of the Democratic Party leaders to remain
focused on past party traditions, particularly the
practice of closed door decisions by the Central Committee
membership and/or actions by the “good old boys and girls”
at the country club/kitchen table, remains alive and well.
Under the Party’s unspoken rules, both new ideas and new
people must work their way through the process. The dues
of time and connections must be paid. Could that be the
reason that Democratic candidates for political office
often seem like the same “stale” people that have been
around too long?

Although the number of donkeys
world-wide is continuing to grow, that cannot be said of
the number of registered Democrats in either the State of
Iowa or in the nation. According to a May 2015 issue of
the Des Moines Register, the number of registered
Democrats in Iowa has dropped in 2015 to 585,178 from a
total of 645,899 registered in 2011. That is a loss of
roughly 60,000 voters, a decline of 9.4%. During that same
period of time, the number of non-party voters increased
to 703,208.

What about attendance at the
Democratic caucus? In 2008 a total of 239,000 Democrats
showed up for the presidential caucus in Iowa (George
Washington University at:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/chrniowa08.html). Using
the 645,899 registered Democrats of 2011 as a measure, the
attendees in the 2008 caucus of 239,000 would represent 37% of
the registered Democrats who were in a position to select
a presidential candidate. Of the total voter eligible
population in Iowa of 2,400,000, the 239,000 attendees at
the Democratic caucus represented just fewer than 10% of
the state’s population. Those were the people who were
able to impact the Democratic Party’s selection for
President of the United States. As noted in the above
section of this article that relates to the Republicans,
there are 218,595,000 individuals eligible to vote in the
United States. Therefore, the 239,000 Democratic attendees
of the noted Iowa Democratic caucus, roughly .109 of 1%
percent (239,000 ÷ 218,595,000) of the eligible national
voters, tell the nation who the Democratic choice for
President of the United States should be.

Working the System:

Additionally, it would appear as though the Iowa
caucus system, coupled with the welcoming of large money
interest for campaign spending in Iowa (with particular
indebtedness to the Citizen’s United case), has become
totally skewed to the limited philosophical wills of those
with little appeal to the average voter. Working the
system by those with access to large funds and by those
with unique philosophical interests is reflective of how
the selection process of candidates by both parties takes
place in Iowa. Therefore, it is no wonder that a shipload
of candidates finds their way into the Republican forum
and debates. After listening to those debates and the idea
of two rounds, or tables, including what has been termed
the “kid’s table,” it is readily apparent that all of the
Republican candidates should sit with bibs at the “kid’s
table” where they can yell and scream as they set forth
meaningless, senseless, and outrageous statement
positions. The Democratic side is no better, especially
when the Democratic hierarchy of party bosses set down
debate limitations that favor specific candidates over
others. That doesn’t seem to be very democratic of the
Democrats.

Since both the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party require party membership for caucus going
voters, an individual must be a party member in order to
select that party’s presidential candidate. Consequently,
the independent voter, regardless of being a former
Democrat or former Republican or simply independent
minded, has no choice in the process when the Iowa caucus
system of selecting a presidential candidate is
considered. It is no wonder as to why groups of limited
interest and/or little, if any, appeal to the public in
general find it cleverly convenient to use either the
Republican Party of Iowa or the Democratic Party of Iowa
as a political power base.

Should the process of
limited political party control in Iowa, as voiced through
the Iowa caucuses, be the continued methodology for
selecting a candidate for President of the United States?
Is the primary system a better method, and if so, should a
primary system be open to the entire voting populous? Do
completely open primaries or even closed party primary
practices, over a caucus system, provide a fairer
approach? Finally, should a caucus system as used in Iowa
really be first?

Maybe it is not the political parties
or the caucus system but the lack of talent. Perhaps I’m
wrong but where are the Abe Lincolns, the George
Washingtons or the Dwight Eisenhowers? And, where are the
Adams, the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Monroes, the
Roosevelts (both parties) or the Trumans? Is it that kind
of talent that we are missing? Or for a candidate who does
not have limited brain capacity or too much money to
promote a misdirected campaign? {NOTE: Mr. Pundt is a
former political activist and Republican Party office
holder. He has been actively involved in various campaigns
for presidential, senatorial, congressional, and local
office candidates.}